Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham C.J.
• Judgment Date: 22 September 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IESC 54
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 315/14
• Date: 22 September 2014

In the matter of Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution

Between/

Edward Ryan

Applicant/Respondent

And

Governor of Midlands prison

Respondent/Appellant

[2014] IESC 54

Denham C.J., Hardiman J., MacMenamin J.

Appeal No. 315/14

THE SUPREME COURT

Unlawful detention – Release from detention – Habeas Corpus – Respondent seeking to be granted one third remission – Whether respondent continued to be detained lawfully by the State

Facts: The respondent, Mr Ryan, was convicted of being in possession of a high powered pistol and 15 rounds of ammunition, in suspicious circumstances, contrary to s. 27 (a) of the Firearms Act 1964. He was sentenced in July, 2010 by the Circuit Criminal Court, to two concurrent sentences of six years imprisonment to run from May, 2010. The return made by the appellant, the Governor of Midlands Prison, certified the grounds for the detention of the respondent as being the warrant of July, 2010, of the Circuit Criminal Court. The respondent’s release date, based on one quarter remission, is the 24th November, 2014. By a letter dated December, 2013, the respondent applied to be granted one third remission under rule 59(2) of the Prison Rules, 2007; under such remission his release date would be approximately the 26th May, 2014. In July, 2014, the High Court ordered that the respondent be released from detention forthwith, and that the appellant pay the costs of the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which asked counsel to make oral submissions as to the appropriateness of the remedy of Article 40.4.2 to the application and position of the respondent. The respondent collaterally attacked his continued detention by urging that the Minister’s decision of the 16th April, 2014, was procedurally flawed.

Held by Denham CJ that, having considered the written judgments of the High Court, as the respondent was a detained person he is entitled to apply for an enquiry under Article 40. However, Denham CJ noted that the High Court had received certification from the appellant exhibiting a valid warrant for detention and that order was sufficient to establish the validity of the detention. Denham CJ applied FX v Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital [2014] IESC 01, holding that not every defeat or illegality attached to detention will invalidate that detention. Denham CJ held that if an order of a Court does not show an invalidity on its face, in particular if it is an order in relation to post conviction detention, then the route of the constitutional and immediate remedy of habeas corpus is not appropriate; an appropriate remedy may be an appeal, or an application for leave to seek judicial review. Denham CJ held that in such circumstances the remedy of Article 40.4.2 arises only if there has been an absence of jurisdiction, a fundamental denial of justice, or a fundamental flaw. Denham CJ held that the Minister’s failure to grant Mr Ryan enhanced remission of sentence is prima facie valid. Denham CJ held that Mr. Ryan’s complaint about the procedures leading to the Minister’s decision may be examined by judicial review, and not under Article 40 as the special and extraordinary features of the Article 40 procedure are not required for the examination of the complaint.

Denham CJ held that the order of the Circuit Criminal Court showed no invalidity on its face, indeed it was not contested that it was a valid order. The Court held that habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for the issue of remission, as raised by the respondent. Consequently, the return made by the appellant, the valid order of the Circuit Criminal Court, was held to be sufficient upon which to detain the appellant.

Appeal allowed.

Denham C.J.

Judgment of the Court ( ex tempore) delivered on the 22nd day of August , 2014, by Denham C.J.

1 This is an appeal by the Governor of Midlands Prison, the respondent/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, from the judgment and order of the High Court (Barrett J.), which were delivered and made respectively on the 2nd July, 2014.

2 Edward Ryan, the applicant/respondent, is referred to as “the respondent”.

3 On the 2nd July, 2014, the High Court ordered that the respondent be released from detention forthwith, and that the appellant do pay the costs of the respondent, to be taxed in default of agreement.

4 The issue which came before the High Court was whether the respondent, a prisoner, continued to be detained lawfully by the State.

5 The respondent was sentenced on the 30th July, 2010, by the Circuit Criminal Court, to two concurrent sentences of six years imprisonment, to run from the 26th May, 2010. He was convicted of two serious offences, of being in possession of a high powered pistol and 15 rounds of ammunition, in suspicious circumstances, contrary to s. 27 (a) of the Firearms Act 1964, as amended.

6 The return made by the appellant certified the grounds for the detention of the respondent as being the warrant of the 30th July, 2010, of the Circuit Criminal Court.

7 The respondent’s release date, based on one quarter remission, is the 24th November, 2014.

8 By a letter dated the 3rd December, 2013, the respondent’s solicitor applied for the respondent to be granted one third remission under rule 59(2) of the Prison Rules, 2007. Under such remission his release date would be approximately the 26th May, 2014.

9 Both the approved and unapproved written judgments of the High Court have been considered by the Court, as have the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.

10 At the hearing of this appeal the Court asked counsel for the parties to make oral submissions as to the appropriateness of the remedy of Article 40.4.2 to...